Yes, except wages under Obama have gone down since he assumed office. When you layer regulations, taxes all kinds of other stuff on companies/economy those costs are passed down. Of course, you're smart so you know this but just being contrary. Which is why part of Obama's legacy will be the house hold income wages actually decreased for American families under Obama. Middle class in particular got mauled. Remember, I told you this a few days ago.
Obama legacy
- Thread starter NovaHoops2002
- Start date
Evidently your skills aren't in demand such that a company would be willing to pay your benefits in order to secure your employment. I'm sure you're an excellent Electrical Engineer....but as you pointed out, nobody is hiring "high tech" workers....much as folks are reluctant to hire philosophers.
If you believe in the free market, you should stop complaining about companies being willing to pay benefits for others, but not for you. It all shakes out in the end.
Yep. He was especially good for healthcare lobbyists. Thanks Obama.
President Obama made rich people like us even richer.
Yes, healthcare lobbyists...and lots and lots and lots of other rich folks. "Thanks Obama" is the proper sentiment.
NickleDimer
Post 'Til Your Fingers Bleed
Well I think having cops on the street, who know who the troublemakers are and then having the ability and stop them and check for handguns saves lives. Certainly is a deterrent for those that want to carry a gun and cause trouble. Now, maybe not socially acceptable to the bleeding hearts, but it saved lives. Check the murder and crime rates before during and after the program ended. Stopping that policy will cost people their lives. Simple as that.
Sure, unfortunately it is a practice that is common now in this industry and I will blame the Republican establishment as well. Big tech companies bring a lot of people over from India/China on H1B1 visa's and it allows them to have cheap labor for big business, particularly in the tech industry. The organization I work in, 70% of the Engineers fall into that category.
And actually if you look at jobs boards and job postings for a lot of industries right now, the majority are contract positions or even just part-time positions. So the economy has changed and a lot of that has to do with the costs of providing benefits, in particular now having to deal with Obamacare.
So yes, his legacy will be now having people pass on healthcare that in the past had it and could afford it and still have others that are still not insured. You now have a program where most of those signed up get it for next to nothing and those that could afford it, and will be asked to pay for everyone else, will pass.
As it is we still have some 30M people uninsured so really what has it done, except to continue to pinch the middle class and hurt the economy. If people like me are spending $1200-1500 a month for healthcare, (I know a guy who is an insurance salesman who pays $1900 for a family of 5!)... that is money that can't be spent to buy real products and create jobs, so our economy continues to slow and as a result it keeps people out of the workforce.
What are the "red cities" that Philadelphians should be jealous of?
It goes into a government program to pay for benefits of those that don't own an alarm clock...Sure it goes into healthcare industry and helps pays for docs/nurses equipment etc..., but I would guess a significant % of that money is wasted as is with most government programs. As it is, the incentive to be a doctor has been reduced since they pay enormous amounts on tuition and carry large student loans/debt, and now they have limits on what they can earn in this system.
And why are so few asked to pay the bill? Sure, I am in a select group that lose in this situation...being penalized for having high income, or at least what the powers that be consider high income, and foot the bill for people that have made big mistakes in their lives, maybe being HS drop outs, or cranking out 3 kids before they turn 20 with no father in the home or guys that are bums and do nothing or maybe even community organizers that don't have a real job. Why must we get have to foot the bill?
Especially in a an economy where prices are rising as well as taxes. Hell, for those in my situation, more than 1/3 of their take home goes towards healthcare premiums and property taxes. How does that help a small businessman sell products and create jobs?
And why are so few asked to pay the bill? Sure, I am in a select group that lose in this situation...being penalized for having high income, or at least what the powers that be consider high income, and foot the bill for people that have made big mistakes in their lives, maybe being HS drop outs, or cranking out 3 kids before they turn 20 with no father in the home or guys that are bums and do nothing or maybe even community organizers that don't have a real job. Why must we get have to foot the bill?
Especially in a an economy where prices are rising as well as taxes. Hell, for those in my situation, more than 1/3 of their take home goes towards healthcare premiums and property taxes. How does that help a small businessman sell products and create jobs?
well 1st there is this...a little outdated but these have gotten worse so this is a bets case scenario for Dems.
City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level (pop. 250,000+)
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007)
then this...more on states than cities...but still tells teh story
http://nikitas3.com/4798/conservative-us-states-are-thriving-liberal-states-are-dying/
Conservative US States are Thriving, Liberal States are Dying
Posted on June 3, 2013 by Nikitas
Investors.com, the website of Investor’s Business Daily, recently reported:
Texas outperformed every other state in the nation on jobs and growth over the past decade, according to the latest annual report on state economic performance released Thursday by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Michigan came in dead last.
The rankings are based on state GDP growth, population shifts, and changes in non-farm payroll jobs between 2001 and 2011.
The ALEC report also finds that Utah has the best economic outlook this year, and Vermont the worst. (end of investors.com excerpt)
OK, so there you go… perhaps the most conservative state in the nation – Texas – is #1 over the last 10 years and another conservative state (Utah) is #1 this year. Meanwhile Michigan is in last place along with ultra-liberal Vermont.
Michigan was one of the richest places on earth for decades with a thriving auto industry. But the unions controlled the state and ruined it, first driving jobs overseas with their outrageous wage demands and strikes, and then finally pushing the remaining parts of General Motors and Chrysler into collapse, requiring a government bailout.
Michigan today has two ultra-liberal Democrat US senators and had an extremely liberal governor from 2002 to 2010. It voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.
In 2010 Michigan elected tough Republican governor Rick Snyder who is making major reforms to stop the state’s plunge into economic purgatory… over the objections of Democrats, of course.
Reported investors.com:
In addition, an IBD analysis of the data finds that conservative, Republican states vastly outperformed liberal, Democratic states over the past decade on jobs and economic growth, and attracted more people to their states.
In fact, of the 10 states that had the best economic performance over the past decade, all but two — Nevada and Washington — are solid red (conservative) states, based on the past four presidential elections. Other top economic performers include Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, Idaho and Arizona.
At the other end of the spectrum, all but two of the worst-performing states are solidly blue (liberal). In addition to Michigan, bottom-dwelling states include New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut and Massachusetts. The only non-blue states in the bottom 10 were Ohio and Missouri. (end of investors.com excerpt)
City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level (pop. 250,000+)
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007)
- Detroit , MI 32.5%
- Buffalo , NY 29.9%
- Cincinnati , OH 27.8%
- Cleveland , OH 27.0%
- Miami , FL 26.9%
- St. Louis , MO 26.8%
- El Paso , TX 26.4%
- Milwaukee , WI 26.2%
- Philadelphia , PA 25.1%
- Newark , NJ 24.2%
- Detroit, MI hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1961
- Buffalo, NY hasn’t elected one since 1954
- Cincinnati, OH …since 1984
- Cleveland, OH …since 1989
- Miami, FL has never had a Republican mayor
- St. Louis, MO ….since 1949
- El Paso, TX has never had a Republican mayor
- Milwaukee, WI …since 1908
- Philadelphia, PA …since 1952
- Newark, NJ …since 1907
then this...more on states than cities...but still tells teh story
http://nikitas3.com/4798/conservative-us-states-are-thriving-liberal-states-are-dying/
Conservative US States are Thriving, Liberal States are Dying
Posted on June 3, 2013 by Nikitas
Investors.com, the website of Investor’s Business Daily, recently reported:
Texas outperformed every other state in the nation on jobs and growth over the past decade, according to the latest annual report on state economic performance released Thursday by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Michigan came in dead last.
The rankings are based on state GDP growth, population shifts, and changes in non-farm payroll jobs between 2001 and 2011.
The ALEC report also finds that Utah has the best economic outlook this year, and Vermont the worst. (end of investors.com excerpt)
OK, so there you go… perhaps the most conservative state in the nation – Texas – is #1 over the last 10 years and another conservative state (Utah) is #1 this year. Meanwhile Michigan is in last place along with ultra-liberal Vermont.
Michigan was one of the richest places on earth for decades with a thriving auto industry. But the unions controlled the state and ruined it, first driving jobs overseas with their outrageous wage demands and strikes, and then finally pushing the remaining parts of General Motors and Chrysler into collapse, requiring a government bailout.
Michigan today has two ultra-liberal Democrat US senators and had an extremely liberal governor from 2002 to 2010. It voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.
In 2010 Michigan elected tough Republican governor Rick Snyder who is making major reforms to stop the state’s plunge into economic purgatory… over the objections of Democrats, of course.
Reported investors.com:
In addition, an IBD analysis of the data finds that conservative, Republican states vastly outperformed liberal, Democratic states over the past decade on jobs and economic growth, and attracted more people to their states.
In fact, of the 10 states that had the best economic performance over the past decade, all but two — Nevada and Washington — are solid red (conservative) states, based on the past four presidential elections. Other top economic performers include Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, Idaho and Arizona.
At the other end of the spectrum, all but two of the worst-performing states are solidly blue (liberal). In addition to Michigan, bottom-dwelling states include New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut and Massachusetts. The only non-blue states in the bottom 10 were Ohio and Missouri. (end of investors.com excerpt)
.
Thank you for this Bush-era list.
So, Philadelphians are to be jealous of Texans? Is that your point?
Good enough for me.
NickleDimer
Post 'Til Your Fingers Bleed
stop and frisk is a pretty egregious instance of our big govt wiping their butt with the constitution. I thought the American right was against that.
If you can get behind things like Roe v. Wade and the gay marriage decision, this is really not a reach at all.
Stop and frisk does not equal full search. Not supposed to be going through people's pockets, just checking to see if they're armed.
BTW, refugees coming here are great...I mean they say they could effectively vet 99% of these people correctly. I mean that would be a great %....wait...out of 10,000 refugees, that means 100 would be ISIS sympathizers or potential terrorists or even worse could radicalize more individuals here.
Hillary, Bernie, and Martin want to bring in 65,000. That's 650 potential terrorists. Yikes...I hope they move them into your neighborhood.
Just to add... Yeah great f.....ing idea! BTW, not real big on gay's and womens' rights either. Yet the Dems want these people..I don't get it.
SHOCK POLL: Third of Syrian Refugees ISIS Sympathizers, 13 Percent Support
Kristinn Taylor Nov 17th, 2015 7:40 am 17 Comments
A poll released in November but ignored by the mainstream media shows a third of Syrian refugees do not want the Muslim terrorist group ISIS defeated. The survey results buttress concerns by the dozens of U.S. governors who have announced opposition to President Barack Obama’s plan to import 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year.
The poll shows thirteen percent of Syrian refugees have a completely positive opinion of ISIS with another ten percent having mixed feelings on the terror group, suggesting that nearly one quarter are open to recruitment by ISIS.
Factoring the survey results with the 10,000 Syrian refugees Obama plans to bring to the United States means Obama will bring in 1,300 ISIS supporters and a total of 3,100 who do not want the US to defeat ISIS.
The Obama administration imported about 1,600 Syrian refugees in the past fiscal year. That means around 200 Syrian refugee ISIS supporters and a total of nearly 500 Syrian refugee ISIS sympathizers are already in the country.
The telephone poll of 900 Syrian refugees was conducted by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies as part of a larger survey of sis hundred people in each of six Arab nations and the Palestinian territories about ISIS. The group surveyed Syrian refugees in “equal proportion” located in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The survey also covered residents of Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Palestinian territories.
The poll has a margin of error rate of plus or minus four percent.
The survey result for the other Arab countries show similar levels of support for ISIS which ought to prompt a reevaluation of the U.S. policy for immigrants and refugees from the Middle East. The sole exception is Lebanon where less than one percent have a positive view of ISIS.
At the other end of the spectrum, even more supportive of ISIS than the Syrian refugees, are Palestinians.
The survey shows twenty-four percent of Palestinians have a positive view of ISIS with another thirty-six percent only having a somewhat negative opinion of ISIS. The survey also shows Palestinians as the only group where less than fifty percent (48) support the defeat of ISIS .
A Google News search shows only Investors Business Daily and The Blaze have reported on the survey. In Canada, which has pledged to take in 25,000 Syrian refugees, it appears only The Rebel has reported on the survey.
Hillary, Bernie, and Martin want to bring in 65,000. That's 650 potential terrorists. Yikes...I hope they move them into your neighborhood.
Just to add... Yeah great f.....ing idea! BTW, not real big on gay's and womens' rights either. Yet the Dems want these people..I don't get it.
SHOCK POLL: Third of Syrian Refugees ISIS Sympathizers, 13 Percent Support
Kristinn Taylor Nov 17th, 2015 7:40 am 17 Comments
A poll released in November but ignored by the mainstream media shows a third of Syrian refugees do not want the Muslim terrorist group ISIS defeated. The survey results buttress concerns by the dozens of U.S. governors who have announced opposition to President Barack Obama’s plan to import 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year.
The poll shows thirteen percent of Syrian refugees have a completely positive opinion of ISIS with another ten percent having mixed feelings on the terror group, suggesting that nearly one quarter are open to recruitment by ISIS.
Factoring the survey results with the 10,000 Syrian refugees Obama plans to bring to the United States means Obama will bring in 1,300 ISIS supporters and a total of 3,100 who do not want the US to defeat ISIS.
The Obama administration imported about 1,600 Syrian refugees in the past fiscal year. That means around 200 Syrian refugee ISIS supporters and a total of nearly 500 Syrian refugee ISIS sympathizers are already in the country.
The telephone poll of 900 Syrian refugees was conducted by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies as part of a larger survey of sis hundred people in each of six Arab nations and the Palestinian territories about ISIS. The group surveyed Syrian refugees in “equal proportion” located in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The survey also covered residents of Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Palestinian territories.
The poll has a margin of error rate of plus or minus four percent.
The survey result for the other Arab countries show similar levels of support for ISIS which ought to prompt a reevaluation of the U.S. policy for immigrants and refugees from the Middle East. The sole exception is Lebanon where less than one percent have a positive view of ISIS.
At the other end of the spectrum, even more supportive of ISIS than the Syrian refugees, are Palestinians.
The survey shows twenty-four percent of Palestinians have a positive view of ISIS with another thirty-six percent only having a somewhat negative opinion of ISIS. The survey also shows Palestinians as the only group where less than fifty percent (48) support the defeat of ISIS .
A Google News search shows only Investors Business Daily and The Blaze have reported on the survey. In Canada, which has pledged to take in 25,000 Syrian refugees, it appears only The Rebel has reported on the survey.
Last edited:
Yeah, amazing those that want strict gun control can oppose stop and frisk. The reality is these cops on the streets know who the problem guys are that they have had run ins with in the past. the guys that have records and get in trouble on a regular basis. Those are the guys they can keep from inflicting damage on their own communities. The same communities that bitch about the policy. They don't get that they are protecting them. Amazing.
If the cops on the streets know who the problem guys are why are we spending so much money on our court system. We should shut that down and put the savings towards subsidizing contractor's insurance premiums.
I like def_wins playbook---weaken the 4th amendment to strengthen the 2nd amendment.
NickleDimer
Post 'Til Your Fingers Bleed
.
*Wink wink*
"Oh he looked like a suspect."
"Oh I thought there might be a gun in that baggy (insert garment/bag name)"
Cute ways for the thin blue line to throw an entire generation of young males in prisons (staffed by their cousins). deepens the inner city family turmoil and fattens up those unaid govt pension liabilities. We wouldn't have had to do this if everyone was a Ben Carson and just picked themselves up by their bootstraps and became a neurosurgeon or Mortgage Depot founder.
Any of our resident liberal contrarians want to take a crack at explaining why this is a good idea?
So far I've heard "Not accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees is not who we are. It's un-American!"
NickleDimer
Post 'Til Your Fingers Bleed
So the majority of arrests from "stop and frisk" stops were for illegal firearms?
I don't think it's necessarily a good idea or a bad idea. It's just more humane.
I have my doubts about it - certainly not a comforting idea. I also have always believed that the many should not be punished for the actions of a few. And I also believe that if ISIS wants to attack the US, they won't need refugees to do so. Hell, there are people born here who go there to join ISIS! A lack of potential operatives isn't holding them back here.
How did they do a phone survey with these refugees?
Did they call their home phones or their cells?
Do you think they took these survey calls with total disregard for roaming fees?
Why are they fleeing a group they support?
I've never looked at and analyzed the numbers on this, but I'd actually guess that the answer is yes, a majority. If a cop does a stop and frisk and all he comes up with is an 8 ball or something, my guess is that even the public defender could get the arrest thrown out or pled down to nothing. Perhaps ball could provide insight there.
Am just as sure though that cops frequently find a gun, the person cannot produce a license and carry permit, then the cop does a full search and the person is booked and also charged with lots of other stuff for whatever else he might have on him.
A majority arrested on gun charges? Really?
From the NY AG: In analyzing close to 150,000 arrests that resulted from approximately 2.4 million stops between 2009 and 2012, the report concludes that roughly half of those arrests, or just three percent of stops, led to guilty pleas or convictions at trial. In addition, just 0.3 percent of stops led to jail sentences of more than 30 days, and 0.1 percent led to convictions for a violent crime.
If you're a 'Nova grad I hope you can do better, bgranc. Where does the language you've quoted indicate that at least 75,001 of the "close to 150,000" arrests involved no illegal gun charges? None of your quote has a thing to do with anything I said, except for maybe setting a "close to 150,000" denominator on arrests. I don't give a $hit what percentage led to long jail sentences, that's completely beside the point. As is whatever the people arrested pled their offenses down to in the end.
Like I said I've never cared to look at or analyze the numbers, but come back with something that refutes what I said and I'll happily offer a mea culpa.
Like I said I've never cared to look at or analyze the numbers, but come back with something that refutes what I said and I'll happily offer a mea culpa.
We are talking about NYC? Have any a clue about gun laws in NYC? You don't think jail sentences correlate to gun charges
Some more:
Among other things, they suggest that approximately half of SQF arrests did not lead to a conviction. For those that did, few involved guns or crimes of violence or yielded prison sentences longer than 30 days."
The report’s key findings include the following:
Close to half of all SQF arrests did not result in a conviction; Fewer than one in four SQF arrests—or 1.5% of all stops—resulted in a jail or prison sentence;
Just one in fifty SQF arrests—or about 0.1% of all stops—led to a conviction for a crime of violence;
Just one in fifty SQF arrests—or about 0.1% of all stops—led to a conviction for possession of a weapon;
and Almost one quarter of SQF arrests (24.7%) were dismissed before arraignment or resulted in a non-criminal charge such as an infraction or a violation at the time of arraignment.
edit to add.. here is the total arrest on weapon charges which includes anything form gravity knives to guns:
The most common offense categories charged at arrest were marijuana possession (14.9%), trespass (13.8%), violence (12.9%), weapons offenses (12.3%), and minor property crimes (11.6%). 17 These categories account for more than half—65.5%—of all SQF arrest charges
Last edited:
Who gives a rat's a$$ what the analysis of the "most common offense categories charged at arrest" reveals. Charging someone with "trespass" and filing under a stop and frisk seems odd, as does "violence" unless it's assault on the cop. Otherwise you could just arrest the person for that and it's not really a stop and frisk, on arrest you can do a full search. So makes the source you're using to cherry pick numbers seem like garbage. Are you mixing apples and oranges?
Even if not, seems like you're assuming that people who get arrested after a stop and frisk are just charged with one thing, whereas most are probably charged with several things.
And I really don't care how many stop and frisks lead to a conviction. That's not the point of stop and frisk and why it's constitutional to begin with. Also a lot of time prosecutors agree to let people plead no contest or similar -- not a conviction. so whatever bleeding heart you're quoting emphasizing that is being intellectually dishonest, makes me question the source.
Can you find something that says a majority of true "stop and frisk" arrests -- as opposed to arrests generally, resulting from other reports and evidence -- did not involve any illegal weapons charges?
Even if not, seems like you're assuming that people who get arrested after a stop and frisk are just charged with one thing, whereas most are probably charged with several things.
And I really don't care how many stop and frisks lead to a conviction. That's not the point of stop and frisk and why it's constitutional to begin with. Also a lot of time prosecutors agree to let people plead no contest or similar -- not a conviction. so whatever bleeding heart you're quoting emphasizing that is being intellectually dishonest, makes me question the source.
Can you find something that says a majority of true "stop and frisk" arrests -- as opposed to arrests generally, resulting from other reports and evidence -- did not involve any illegal weapons charges?
Its the NY AG report. Have a better source? The data came directly from the NYPD and stops they classified as part of the program.
You said a majority of arrests from stop and frisk were gun charges. Now you are saying the arrest description doesn't matter? You think they are hiding the weapons charge when they find a gun and just laying on the trespassing charge?? If you want to believe 50%+ of stops lead to arrests on gun charges and that the NY AG office somehow hid those numbers, go ahead. You think a prosecutor is letting all these guys with illegal guns get adjudication in contemplation of dismissal?
You said a majority of arrests from stop and frisk were gun charges. Now you are saying the arrest description doesn't matter? You think they are hiding the weapons charge when they find a gun and just laying on the trespassing charge?? If you want to believe 50%+ of stops lead to arrests on gun charges and that the NY AG office somehow hid those numbers, go ahead. You think a prosecutor is letting all these guys with illegal guns get adjudication in contemplation of dismissal?